Zanimljiv tekst o njemačkom prepravljanju istorije. Naći konvertor sa ćirilice prvo:

http://ruskarec.ru/arts/2013/05/07/plem ... 21845.html

Inače, taj istorijski revizionizam je više pravilo nego izuzetak, evo Japanci se bude, Turci odavno svoju imperiju predstavljaju kao preteču EU koju su razorili bolesni nacionalizmi malih naroda...

Lijep portal, puno bolji od pederskog Advance koji još hoće naplaćujivati čitanje svojih članaka.

Rekao bih da se Njemačkoj nije moglo otvoreno slaviti nacizam i ratove, pa se to kanaliziralo na druge načine, recimo odavanjem poštovanja pojedinim vojnim ličnostima (npr. Rommelu, Guderianu...) ili isticanjem nepravednog odnosa prema njima nakon 1. sv. rata. Danas se sve više istražuje i propituje ono što se ranije uzimalo zdravo za gotovo. Nije revizionizam uvijek loše ako će dovesti do realnije slike povijesnih događaja.

Met, jesam li ja to primjetio da počinjete koristiti izraz stoljeće?? Majku vam lopovsku, vi k'o da hoćete jedan jezik

Što se tiče njemačkog odnosa prema WW2, smatram da je on u ovom trenutku dosta zdraviji od hrvatskog, te da se nacizam i oni dobri nacisti čak lagano i slavi...
General Rommel, koji je zasigurno odgovoran i za neke zločine, naprimjer u Istri, ima ulicu u svakom selu, slave se neki velikani vojne taktike, kao što je već naveo Veprić...

Čini mi se da ljevici to lagano počinje smetati, sad sam bio u Munchenu i na nekom muzeju su izvjesili ogromni natpis gegen Nazis...

U ovoljetnom posjetu Njemačkoj sam bio u kući jedne prave Njemice i njima nikakav problem ne predstavlja fotografija djeda u uniformi Wehrmarchta, čak je postavljena na centralno mjesto, dok su kod nas obiteljske slike takve tematike obično u najprašnjavijem albumu...

Prestani da psuješ, ovo ti je drugi put, i to opet na temi "krađe hrvatskih riječi".
Nemam pojma, ako koristimo onda je to zato što je to srpska riječ A možda i Rusi koriste, pa prevodilac, ovo ono, qrac ga znao.

Šta ima zdravo u tome što se slavi najveće zlo u prošlom vijeku? Ajde što kače djedovu sliku, njihov je, ali svijetu samo treba da oni počnu ponovo da se ponose svojim nacizmom, ili Japanci.

Rommel i Stauffenberg su jedina dva lika koja su pozitivno spomenuta u vezi drugog svjetskog tu nema vise nikoga....ili priduboko uvuceni SS-ovci itd. ili jednostavno nepoznati, ili bezkicmenjaci. Sto se tice pozitivnog gledanja na neke ljude iz tog razdoblja, toga otvoreno nema. Kod mladih pogotovo, jednostavno ih ne zanima. Za prosjecnog njemca Rommel nije junak, niti je Stauffenberg. Meni se nekad cini da je Njemcima to razdoblje nekih dvista godina daleko. Mladjima.

Bojis se?

Čemu onda ovakvi filmovi?

Kad se budem bojao Švaba ili Hrvata, pucaću si u glavu

Iskreno da ti kazen nisan cita taj tvoj tekst, neda mi se traziti konvertere, ja san pogleda dija jedne epizode, jedan lik, prasinar, Wehrmachtlija izpada pozitivan, a jedan SS-ovac djecoubica, moralni olos i cisto govno. Ko da su ga ameri pedesetih nacrtali. Pa sto hoces vise? Da se i danas pospu pepelon.

Ako se ne bojis, u cemu ti je problem.

Pa trebaju se stvari propitkivati. Recimo najpoznatiji britanski povjesničar mlađe generacije Niall Ferguson čiji smo dokumentarac o usponu Kine imali prilike pratiti na HRT-u smatra da je Velika Britanija kriva za katastrofu zvanu Prvi svjetski rat.

In 1998, Ferguson published the critically acclaimed The Pity of War: Explaining World War One. This is an analytic account of what Ferguson considered to be the ten great myths of the Great War. The book generated much controversy, particularly Ferguson's suggestion that it might have proved more beneficial for Europe if Britain had stayed out of the First World War in 1914, thereby allowing Germany to win. Ferguson has argued that the British decision to intervene was what stopped a German victory in 1914–15. Furthermore, Ferguson expressed disagreement with the Sonderweg interpretation of German history championed by some German historians such as Fritz Fischer, Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Hans Mommsen and Wolfgang Mommsen, who argued that the German Empire deliberately started an aggressive war in 1914. Likewise, Ferguson has often attacked the work of the German historian Michael Stürmer, who argued that it was Germany's geographical situation in Central Europe that determined the course of German history.

On the contrary, Ferguson maintained that Germany waged a preventive war in 1914, a war largely forced on the Germans by reckless and irresponsible British diplomacy. In particular, Ferguson accused the British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey of maintaining an ambiguous attitude to the question of whether Britain would enter the war or not, and thus confusing Berlin over just what was the British attitude towards the question of intervention in the war. Ferguson accused London of unnecessarily allowing a regional war in Europe to escalate into a world war. Moreover, Ferguson denied that the origins of National Socialism could be traced back to Imperial Germany; instead Ferguson asserted the origins of Nazism could only be traced back to the First World War and its aftermath.

Ferguson attacked a number of ideas which he called "myths" in the book. They are listed here, (with his counter-arguments in parentheses):

Germany was a highly militarist country before 1914. (Ferguson argued that Germany was Europe's most anti-militarist country when compared to countries like Britain and France.)
The naval threat posed by Germany drove Britain into an informal alliance with France and Russia before 1914. (Ferguson argues that the British decided to align themselves with Russia and France seeing as they were more influential and powerful than Germany.)
British policy was due to a legitimate fear of Germany. (Ferguson shows how Germany posed no significant threat to Britain and British fears were driven by propaganda and economic self interest.)
The pre-1914 arms race was consuming increasingly larger portions of national budgets at an unsustainable rate. (Ferguson demonstrates using actual budget information of the European powers that the only limitations on more military spending before 1914 were political, not economic.)
That World War I was an act of aggression on the part of Germany that provoked the British to stop Germany from conquering Europe. (Ferguson infers that if Germany had been victorious over France and Russia, something like the European Union would have been created in 1914. It would have been for the best if Britain had chosen to opt out of war in 1914, seeing as Germany just wanted its "place in the sun.")
Most people were enthusiastic when the war started in 1914. (Ferguson claims that most Europeans were saddened by the start of war, especially when it dragged on long after it was supposed to end.)
That propaganda was successful in making men wish to fight. (Ferguson states that propaganda was not nearly as effective as most experts argue.)
The Allies utilized their economic resources to the fullest. (Ferguson argues that the allies made poor use of their vast economic resources such as those coming from their colonies as well as corruption in the war time governments. France and Britain both possessed huge colonial possessions that offered a plethora of resources as well as man power.)
That the British and the French possessed better armies than the central powers. (Ferguson claims that the German Army was superior seeing as they were composed of professional soldiers with better equipment and leadership.)
The Allies were better at killing Germans throughout the war. (Ferguson statistically shows that the Germans were actually far superior in exacting casualties than the Allies, this is due to German strategy and use of poison gas.)
The majority of soldiers hated fighting in the war due to intolerable conditions. (Ferguson asserts that most soldiers fought due to nationalism and a sense of duty.)
The British treated German prisoners more humanely than the Germans did. (Ferguson cites numerous occasions in which British officers ordered the killing of German prisoners of war.)
Germany was faced with reparations that could not be paid except at the expense of the German economy. (Ferguson attempts to prove that Germany could have paid reparations if they had been willing.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson

Kako će to germanofobi podnijet.

Sad sam vidio da na stranici ima i latinična opcija, samo klikneš.

Ne radi se o tome šta ja hoću, ovo je jedan tekst koji može i ne mora da bude tačan, ali mislim da je zanimljiv. Jel istina recimo da Ruse, Ukrajince i Poljake predstavljaju kao stoku?

Pitanje ti je glupo, jel treba da se bojiš pa da ne želiš da postoji zlo? Vi Hrvati ste dobri samo kad se bojite?

Englesko je gotovo. Pripremaju se na veliko za sljedeće nasilne nemire u engleskim gradovima. Mislim da će ovaj put da pokažu zube to ugušiti u puno krvi.
I taj škotski referendum, ako se odvoje britansko carstvo ide u povijest. Neki drugi veliki igrači preuzimaju scenu.

Why Did Japan Attack Us?

In 1921, at the Washington Naval Conference, the United States pressured the British to end their 20-year alliance with Japan. By appeasing the Americans, the British enraged and alienated a proud nation that had been a loyal friend.

Japan was now isolated, with Stalin’s brooding empire to the north, a rising China to the east and, to the south, Western imperial powers that detested and distrusted her.

When civil war broke out in China, Japan in 1931 occupied Manchuria as a buffer state. This was the way the Europeans had collected their empires. Yet, the West was “shocked, shocked” that Japan would embark upon a course of “aggression.” Said one Japanese diplomat, “Just when we learn how to play poker, they change the game to bridge.”

Japan now decided to create in China what the British had in India – a vast colony to exploit that would place her among the world powers. In 1937, after a clash at Marco Polo Bridge near Peking, Japan invaded and, after four years of fighting, including the horrific Rape of Nanking, Japan controlled the coastal cities, but not the interior.

When France capitulated in June 1940, Japan moved into northern French Indochina. And though the United States had no interest there, we imposed an embargo on steel and scrap metal. After Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, Japan moved into southern Indochina. FDR ordered all Japanese assets frozen.

But FDR did not want to cut off oil. As he told his Cabinet on July 18, an embargo meant war, for that would force oil-starved Japan to seize the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies. But a State Department lawyer named Dean Acheson drew up the sanctions in such a way as to block any Japanese purchases of U.S. oil. By the time FDR found out, in September, he could not back down.

Tokyo was now split between a War Party and a Peace Party, with the latter in power. Prime Minister Konoye called in Ambassador Joseph Grew and secretly offered to meet FDR in Juneau or anywhere in the Pacific. According to Grew, Konoye was willing to give up Indochina and China, except a buffer region in the north to protect her from Stalin, in return for the U.S. brokering a peace with China and opening up the oil pipeline. Konoye told Grew that Emperor Hirohito knew of his initiative and was ready to give the order for Japan’s retreat.

Fearful of a “second Munich,” America spurned the offer. Konoye fell from power and was replaced by Hideki Tojo. Still, war was not inevitable. U.S. diplomats prepared to offer Japan a “modus vivendi.” If Japan withdrew from southern Indochina, the United States would partially lift the oil embargo. But Chiang Kai-shek became “hysterical,” and his American adviser, one Owen Lattimore, intervened to abort the proposal.

Facing a choice between death of the empire or fighting for its life, Japan decided to seize the oil fields of the Indies. And the only force capable of interfering was the U.S. fleet that FDR had conveniently moved from San Diego out to Honolulu.

And so Japan attacked. And so she was crushed and forced out of Vietnam, out of China, out of Manchuria. And so they fell to Stalin, Mao and Ho Chi Minh. And so it was that American boys, not Japanese boys, would die fighting Koreans, Chinese and Vietnamese to try to block the aggressions of a barbaric Asian communism.

Now Japan is disarmed and China is an Asian giant whose military boasts of pushing the Americans back across the Pacific. Had FDR met Prince Konoye, there might have been no Pearl Harbor, no Pacific war, no Hiroshima, no Nagasaki, no Korea, no Vietnam. How many of our fathers and uncles, brothers and friends, might still be alive?

http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-why-did-ja ... ack-us-401


Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?

Edited by historian George Nash, “Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath” is a searing indictment of FDR and the men around him as politicians who lied prodigiously about their desire to keep America out of war, even as they took one deliberate step after another to take us into war.

Consider Japan’s situation in the summer of 1941. Bogged down in a four year war in China she could neither win nor end, having moved into French Indochina, Japan saw herself as near the end of her tether.

Inside the government was a powerful faction led by Prime Minister Prince Fumimaro Konoye that desperately did not want a war with the United States.

The “pro-Anglo-Saxon” camp included the navy, whose officers had fought alongside the U.S. and Royal navies in World War I, while the war party was centered on the army, Gen. Hideki Tojo and Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka, a bitter anti-American.

On July 18, 1941, Konoye ousted Matsuoka, replacing him with the “pro-Anglo-Saxon” Adm. Teijiro Toyoda.

The U.S. response: On July 25, we froze all Japanese assets in the United States, ending all exports and imports, and denying Japan the oil upon which the nation and empire depended.

Stunned, Konoye still pursued his peace policy by winning secret support from the navy and army to meet FDR on the U.S. side of the Pacific to hear and respond to U.S. demands.

U.S. Ambassador Joseph Grew implored Washington not to ignore Konoye’s offer, that the prince had convinced him an agreement could be reached on Japanese withdrawal from Indochina and South and Central China. Out of fear of Mao’s armies and Stalin’s Russia, Tokyo wanted to hold a buffer in North China.

On Aug. 28, Japan’s ambassador in Washington presented FDR a personal letter from Konoye imploring him to meet.

Tokyo begged us to keep Konoye’s offer secret, as the revelation of a Japanese prime minister’s offering to cross the Pacific to talk to an American president could imperil his government.

On Sept. 3, the Konoye letter was leaked to the Herald-Tribune.

On Sept. 6, Konoye met again at a three-hour dinner with Grew to tell him Japan now agreed with the four principles the Americans were demanding as the basis for peace. No response.

On Sept. 29, Grew sent what Hoover describes as a “prayer” to the president not to let this chance for peace pass by.

On Sept. 30, Grew wrote Washington, “Konoye’s warship is ready waiting to take him to Honolulu, Alaska or anyplace designated by the president.”

No response. On Oct. 16, Konoye’s cabinet fell.

In November, the U.S. intercepted two new offers from Tokyo: a Plan A for an end to the China war and occupation of Indochina and, if that were rejected, a Plan B, a modus vivendi where neither side would make any new move. When presented, these, too, were rejected out of hand.

At a Nov. 25 meeting of FDR’s war council, Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s notes speak of the prevailing consensus: “The question was how we should maneuver them (the Japanese) into … firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”

“We can wipe the Japanese off the map in three months,” wrote Navy Secretary Frank Knox.

As Grew had predicted, Japan, a “hara-kiri nation,” proved more likely to fling herself into national suicide for honor than to allow herself to be humiliated.

Out of the war that arose from the refusal to meet Prince Konoye came scores of thousands of U.S. dead, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the fall of China to Mao Zedong, U.S. wars in Korea and Vietnam, and the rise of a new arrogant China that shows little respect for the great superpower of yesterday.

If you would know the history that made our world, spend a week with Mr. Hoover’s book.

http://buchanan.org/blog/did-fdr-provok ... arbor-4953


Amerikanci preispituju svoju povijest.

Ništa nije crno bijelo.

Nije istina.
Mozda bi Rusi tili da Njemci danas slave masovna silovanja crvene armije, pojma neman. Ali takve stvari, ili bombardiranje Dresdena od strane saveznika, to su teme za one malo desnije, konzervativce koji to onako spominju, ili za saku skinhead budala koji to tematizirajua prave vise stete nego koristi.
Budi siguran, zrtve Njemaca su itekako prikazane, ne prodju dva tjedna bez neke dokumentacije o Auschwitzu, o svojin zrtvama vise manje sutu, postave spomenike po selama i malo se raduju da su i oni ipak imali Stauffenberga, nacionalistu koji se okrenija protiv Hice.
I sad dolazis ti i ruska rec i to in jos hocete uzeti.
Za dobrobit Europe, pustite ih.

Mislim da su određenu ulogu odigrale i kopjuterske igrice, prije svega strategije. U njima je jednako normalno igrati s Nijemcima kao i s Englezima, Rusima...

Jel treba da potcrtam razliku između preispitivanja i lažiranja istorije?

Ove Fergusonove teorije mi zvuče kao golo sranje.



Takođe sranje, Nijemci su u rat stupili kao saveznici Austrije, koja je opet ušla u rat jer je isti smatrala jedinom šansom za svoj opstanak. A i jedni i drugi su znali da Rusi neće dozvoliti uništenje Srbije.

Bolje objašnjenje daje mladi Indijana Džons u onoj seriji nego ovaj vrli istoričar. Ni na šta njih Englezi nisu natjerali.



Dakle, Englezi su krivi jer Nijemcima nisu jasno dali do znanja da će se umiješati? A to što nisu znali da li će se Englezi umiješati opravdava Nijemce što su krenuli u rat?



Bila je to jedan hipi zemlja, a Prusi su voljeli poljske porniće i gardening.



Kiki je znao da je ta priča qrac, al nije znao čuvat za sebe...

Ne možete vi Srbi sa foruma diskutirati povijest. Jučer ste furali da niste držali Sarajevo u opsadi.

A ne, nismo tvrdili da nismo, već da je nažalost bilo vojnički neophodno pošto je onaj ludi islamski fanatik počeo rat, i da žalimo zbog svih nevinih žrtava i počinjenih zločina prilikom te pravedne odbrambene borbe sarajevskih Srba. To što je agresor bio okružen ne znači da nije bio agresor, već samo da smo se dobro branili

Znao sam koji će tvoj odgovor biti tako da neću odgovarati dalje i provocirati.

Vama je germanofobija u gene ušla pa je teško rapsravljati.

Dvije noge loše, četiri dobre, Nijemci čisto zlo.

Metemma, nisi updatiran sa novim spoznajama poslije otvaranja KGB arhiva (čitaj prodaje dokumenata strancima), i poslije nedavne objave klasificiranih dokumenata iz WWII od US i UK.
Većina toga, neka su još uvijek stroge državne tajne.

Kosovo je što?

Što se odnosa Nijemaca i Engleza tiče, činjenica je da su Englezi oba puta Nijemcima objavili rat, a ne obratno. No, glavni uzrok WW1 je u paklenom stroju savezništava, gdje je jedna objava rata pokrenula domino istih (Austrija Srbiji, kao odgovor na to Rusija Austriji, kao odgovor na to Njemačka Rusiji, itd.).

Što se Engleza tiče, zna se da je bilo čiji napad na zemlje Beneluxa za njih casus belli, jer si ne smiju dopustiti da bilo koja dominantna europska sila kontrolira područje s kojeg je UK najugroženije.

Da mala matura... Velika gospodine doc, velika.

Očito se ne rađaju samo Zagorci s malom maturom.

Malo ću trolati ali s obzirom na popularnost Mućki u nas valjda će mi vlast oprostiti.

Uvijek mi je bilo sumnjivo kako naši prevode Rodneyeva dva GSE-a iz matematike i likovnog kao Malu maturu.

To bi trebala biti Velika matura budući je Rodney kasnije išao par dana na faks.

Kad je Rodney išao u školu u Engleskoj se pisala ono što bi mi rekli Mala matura koju pišu sa 16 godina i koju oni zovu Certificate of Secondary Education (CSE) ili General Certificate of Education Ordinary level (GSE O level). Ovo potonje je bilo za 25% najuspješnijih. Ta dva dijela Male mature su kasnije preimenovana u General Certificate of Secondary Education.

Nakon toga se uči još dvije godine za General Certificate of Education Advanced level (GSE A level) i kad se to položi sa 18 godina se može ići na faks.

Tako da zapravo ona dva famozna Rodneyeva GSE-ija nisu Mala već Velika matura!

Vjerojatno su naši prevoditelji bili zavedeni Delovim posprdnim korištenjem tog termina pa su ga preveli s Mala Matura kako bi istaknuli obezvrijeđivanje Rodneyevih akademskih postignuća ali Rodney Trotter zapravo ima dvije Velike mature iz matematike i likovnog, a to nije mala stvar!

Del: Rodney, do i hear our car phone ringing?
Rodney: No...
Del: Are you sure?
Rodney: Yea...we don't have a car phone.